Responses

Download PDFPDF
Pulse oximetry as a screening test for congenital heart defects in newborn infants: a cost-effectiveness analysis
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Practicalities of Implementing Pulse Oximetry Screening
    • Jason A Horsley, Honorary Lecturer in Public Health
    • Other Contributors:
      • Matthew S Day

    We welcome the recent article examining the cost-effectiveness of pulse oximetry screening for newborns[1]. Implementing a new screening programme creates ongoing operating costs and start up costs. The model for their cost effectiveness analysis was based on a previous model described by Knowles et al[2], which based the cost of echocardiography on provision by a senior radiographer.

    Ewer et all calculated a s...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.